i don't know who wroelt it fte "the national review," but you say it's racist. >> i think there's some strong racial undertones there. look, if there is where a wing of the republican party is now, i say a wing, honestly, then not only does it look less and less likely that we'll find some agreement on this issue, it is mind boggling to me just as you analyze it from a narrow political sense how a party who lost so miserably with a group of people would lump an entire population of immigrants into and try to define them so narrowly and so cruelly as that editorial did. look, i think immigration reform would be hard even amongst some democrats. but if this is where we start, i actually think it's helpful to the issue if this is where "the national review" wants to be because i think you'll find some moderate republicans and even those moderate democrats wanting to come around on something that allows some path, whether it's citizenship or green card or however you choose to define it, this is good for democrats, and i think it ultimately may be good for the issue. >> let's go to mike. p